Clerical Employee Agreement – Over time, agents began recruiting licensed insurance agents to help them. State Farm, agents and agent staff have entered into office agreements („EC agreements“). These agreements have delegated to the staff of agents „mandatory in-office authority“ on certain insurance in kind and in civil liability and the power to take claims of personal life and health insurance. The EC agreements stipulated that representatives, not public agriculture, were employers. The EC agreements did not contain trade secrets or non-publicity. State Farm cites several cases, including Touchard v. La-Z-Boy and Appling v. State Farm, in support of their position that the provision of the agent`s agreement is a valid, at will provision that allows the termination of the agreement between Little and State Farm for some reason. In Touchard, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that „if the job is of concern, either the employer or the employee may terminate the job for some reason or reason, unless it is prohibited by law.“ In Appling, the Ninth Arrondissement found that the termination provision in the agent`s agreement, which in this case governs the relationship between State Farm and Little, does not require a justifiable reason. On January 4, 2007, the California Court of Appeals issued a decision concluding that the ASA`s trade secrets and non-compete clauses were in fact contrary to the agent`s agreement. The court ordered „a final judgment, stating that these provisions of the ASA constitute a violation of the agreement, and that it prevents State Farm from imposing these provisions on officers and their employees.“ The judgment became final on October 4, 2007.
In its opinion, the California court recognized that an injunction concerning Little would be challenged because it was no longer used by The State Farm. Courts take into account many variables; However, the usual investigations include: whether the employer`s non-compete agreement goes beyond mere non-competition, whether the worker has benefited from the signing of the non-competition ban and whether the requirements of the non-competition clause appear appropriate. As mentioned above, the agent`s agreement contained an at-will provision that allowed Little or State Farm to terminate the relationship in writing for any reason. State Farm met the requirements of this express provision. Hardly, State Farm can impose essential obligations or restrictions beyond the restrictions contained in the specific provisions of its agreement. Thus, Little`s request to violate good faith and act fairly legally fails. The case concerned three types of agreements between State Farm and independent contractors and insurance agents and their employees: (1) Agent Contract, (2) Flight Office Agents and (3) Personnel Licensing Agreement. Non-compete agreements are documents signed by a worker, either at the beginning or at some point in his or her employment with a company, in which it is promised not to work on a specific site in the same competing sector or to work for certain employers for a specified period after the end of the current employment. For example, if you work for many years in public enterprise insurance and have a job at Allstate, your current staff record – if it has a non-compete agreement – would prevent you from giving your two-week notice and starting your new job at Allstate. Few work with State Farm as an insurance agent for more than thirty years, lastly, in the terms „an agent contract that defines the objectives, obligations and responsibilities that are related to the relationship between the agent who works as an independent contractor, and State Farm.“ The agent`s agreement gave the officers complete control over the employees the agent had hired for the marketing and sale of insurance.